↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the prevention of nutritional rickets in term born children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the prevention of nutritional rickets in term born children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006164.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Lerch, Thomas Meissner

Abstract

Nutritional rickets is a disease of growing children leading to bone deformities, bone pain, convulsions or delayed motor development. Today, high-incidence of nutritional rickets is mainly found in low-income countries. To assess the effects of various interventions on the prevention of nutritional rickets in term born children. Studies were obtained from computerised searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted authors of studies or reviews to obtain further studies. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled clinical trials, controlled clinical trials or prospective cohort studies comparing any intervention for the prevention of nutritional rickets in term born children with placebo or no intervention. Minimum duration of the intervention was three months for children under 12 months or six months for children over 12 months. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Authors of studies were contacted to obtain missing information. Four studies enrolled approximately 1700 participants. Trials lasted between nine months to two years. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, two of which showed a cluster randomised design; one trial probably was a controlled trial with researcher controlled group assignment. In children up to three years of age in Turkey, Vitamin D compared to no intervention showed a relative risk of 0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 0.71). Despite a marked non-compliance, a Chinese trial in children up to three years of age comparing a combined intervention of supplementation of vitamin D, calcium and nutritional counseling showed a relative risk of 0.76 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95) compared to no intervention. In two studies conducted in older children in China and in France no rickets occurred in both the intervention and control group. There a only few studies on the prevention of nutritional rickets in term born children. Until new data become available, it appears sound to offer preventive measures (vitamin D or calcium) to groups of high risk, like infants and toddlers; children living in Africa, Asia or the Middle East or migrated children from these regions into areas where rickets is not frequent. Due to a marked clinical heterogeneity and the scarcity of data, the main and adverse effects of preventive measures against nutritional rickets should be investigated in different countries, different age groups and in children of different ethnic origin.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 331 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 18%
Researcher 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 37 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Other 20 6%
Other 51 15%
Unknown 95 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 9%
Social Sciences 20 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 107 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,411,690
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,003
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,745
of 88,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.